Brainwashing In Schools

Rather scary reading in Andrew Montford (of Bishop Hill) and John Shade’s Climate Control: Brainwashing in schools:

The impetus to put the environment and sustainable development at the centre of the education agenda can be traced back to the early 1970s. In these early days of the modern environmental movement, the UN’s Stockholm Conference of 1972 concluded that environmental education was ‘essential in order to broaden the basis for. . . enlightened opinion and responsible conduct’.

I was rather surprised how early it all started. I was a bit ‘environmental’ in the early 1970s, at a time when hardly anybody else took much interest in it. After that time, I gradually lost interest.

So, leaving university in the mid-1970s, I seem to have missed a profound change in the education system. And not being a parent, I’ve also missed the following:

This revolution in the purpose of education appears to be not only concerned
with changing the way children think but also about changing the behaviour
of adults, using their children as a lever. The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra
Pachauri has suggested that a focus on children is the top priority for bringing
about societal change, and that by ‘sensitising’ children to climate change, it
will be possible to get them to ‘shame adults into taking the right steps’.
Pachauri’s ideas are echoed in UNICEF’s manual on climate change education,
which, it is claimed, is about helping children to become ‘agents of change’.

So not only are chiiiildren being used to justify all kinds of draconian measures on the one hand, but they’re also being used a shock troops against parents on the other hand. They have a dual use.

But in addition, climate change and related
areas such as energy use were to be taught across the curriculum, appearing
in chemistry, physics, biology, and citizenship lessons. And by accident or
design, the result has been the teaching of one particular dogma rather than
a balanced approach.

Perhaps this explains why, despite growing climate scepticism about global warming, the emphasis on climate change is being maintained by government and media, as if nothing was happening. And it’s because the educational (or re-educational) programme has been under way for 40 years, under both Conservative and Labour governments. There’s far too much invested in it.

And it’s scaring the wits out of lots of children.

In a survey of 500 American pre-teens,
it was found that one in three children aged between 6 and 11 feared that
the Earth would not exist when they reached adulthood because of global
warming and other environmental threats.105 In the UK, a 2006 survey found
that climate change was children’s top worry. . .

Montford and Shade conclude:

There can be little doubt that the provision of a rigorous education has now
given way to a highly politicised brainwashing of growing minds with ‘climate
change’ and energy scares as motivators and ‘sustainable development’ as the
‘solution’ . Gone are the days when the education system hoped to generate young people equipped to form their own opinions on complex scientific, sociological and political issues. Instead the education system, subverted by a green political movement, now seeks conformity with environmentalist orthodoxy, with any challenge to its vivid certainties viewed as transgressions to be ignored or treated with contempt.

The seriousness of what we have seen is hard to overstate. The fact that children’s ability to pass their exams – and hence their future life prospects – appears to depend on being able to demonstrate their climate change orthodoxy is painfully reminiscent of life in communist-era Eastern Europe or Mao’s China. Politicians seem to have given the nod to this process, effectively handing much of the curriculum to green activists. The question of whether what is taught in the classroom is scientific or political, balanced or biased, true or false seems to have gone unexamined.

Maybe smoking bans are the least of it all? Maybe they’re just one small component of a general re-education programme that’s been under way for a long time? One that involves all values being changed, not just one or two of them.

More on this from James Delingpole. And also this.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Brainwashing In Schools

  1. Harleyrider1978 says:

    This is very fitting for the topic Frank………………

    DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa” Theory of Human Evolution

    By Steven Strong

    Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

    Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

    This article was inspired by a comment made recently by Australian historian Greg Jefferys. So before continuing a scientific assessment of DNA evidence, I will first open this discussion by outlining Greg Jefferys’ comments.

    The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it.

    It did begin the early 90’s. And the academics most responsible for cementing both the Out-of Africa theory and the complementary common ancestral African mother – given the name of “Eve” – in the public arena and nearly every curriculum, were Professors Alan C. Wilson and Rebecca L. Cann. In their defense, the authors of this paper were fully aware that genealogy is not in any way linked to geography, and that their placement of Eve in Africa was an assumption, never an assertion. In their seminal paper The Recent African Genesis of Humans, they even stipulated “that all humans today can be traced along maternal lines of descent to a woman who lived about 200,000 years ago, probably in Africa.”

    So how is it that their “probably” has morphed into our collective “definitely”?

    Over time, even the two researchers came to discover that the research of Original Mitochondrial DNA was fundamentally flawed. Both separately conducted further tests on Mitochondrial DNA found within the blood of full-descent Original people, arriving at the same conclusion, both recanted their previous assumptions by acknowledging that Homo sapien sapiens originated in Australia.

    Professor Alan Wilson came to Australia in 1987 and 1989 to personally supervise the collection of Original blood from a variety of locations throughout Australia. With a mutation rate of 70% from the samples analysed, which is manifestly higher than any other race, Wilson was compelled to admit that:

    … it seems too far out to admit, but while Homo erectus was muddling along in the rest of the world, a few erectus had got to Australia and did something dramatically different – not even with stone tools – but it is here that Homo sapiens emerged and evolved.

    More here…………..

    In the 1980s this was called AFRO-CENTRISM………The building up of the black race as the center of all civilization………If you watch the so called history channel you will see Egyptians portrayed as black Africans rather than the semetic peoples we all know them to be!

  2. waltc says:

    I doubt any of us wants to read all 1, 063 pages, but here’s a summary of the latest Heartland report that shreds global warming. Already the warmists are ad hom’ing the authors, one of them characterizing them on television as not real scientists but “washed-up ex scientists.” Hell hath no fury like warmist (or a tobacco-controllist) scorned.

  3. Harleyrider1978 says:

    It would appear as time rolls forward and it seems to be coming even faster that the myths created from the 1950s onward are being totally destroyed at a rapid pace today.

  4. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Well that didn’t take em long to abuse us with!

    It Just Got Easier to Ban Outdoor Smoking

    A new mapping technique could help public officials make the case to ban smoking in public areas.

    You’re walking into a restaurant or bar with some friends, when the recently rehabilitated smoker of the group spots someone puffing on a cigarette outside and says, “Go ahead, I’ll meet you in there.”

    You know the drill. In a few minutes, the smoker standing outside is going to be less one cigarette and a bit of butane, and your friend will return to the table with a familiar stench, pledging to try quitting again next month.

    Just imagine standing on the street and being able to count 116 smokers in your line of sight.

    While a significant body of research shows that smoking is a socially cued behavior and second-hand smoke is a health hazard, public smoking bans remain controversial. Opponents say the bans limit their individual freedom, while proponents point to research that shows how visual exposure to smokers can encourage young smokers and make it hard to quit.

    Researchers in New Zealand have used new mapping technology to make the incidence of smoking visibility more concrete and observable—and they hope health agencies can use the maps to mobilize public policy action.

  5. Junican says:

    It seems that the brainwashing method involves using ‘climate change’ as an example when doing mathematical calculations. Such as, “Assume that the temperature of the world rises by 2 degrees C, how many acres of land will become desert?” (For this calculation, you may assume that for every 0.1 degree of warming, 10 acres of land will become desert).
    Another example.
    “If the population of polar bears is 20,000, how much will that population be reduced if their habitat is reduced by 20%, assuming that the reduction is equally distributed?”

    Simple maths, but insidious in its ‘subliminal’ intention.

  6. XX Stockholm Conference XX Stockholm syndrome…. ironic.

  7. I have personal experience of this with the education of the little Ps, but a friend recently told me of a member of their family and something that happened to them at university last year. They were tasked with a project on environmentalism but the student answered the question by refuting climate change with full references to back up their argument. It was marked 0%! Their parent was furious and read the riot act, saying that the point of a university is to nurture debate and produce thoughtful and quizzical adults, not unquestioning drones. The uni reluctantly went away and remarked the piece, giving it a comfortable pass mark. I’d say people who can even contemplate playing political games with the country’s youth should be in prison, but hey.

    Also, there’s something about Stockholm, isn’t there? One of Godber’s early anti-smoking junkets was held there in 1979, and where they first decided to produce junk stdies on SHS. Some Jap published the first one the following year.

    • Rose says:

      Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan.
      Hirayama T.


      “Results of the statistical study, which are being published in tomorrow’s issue of The British Medical Journal, ”appear to explain the long-standing riddle of why many women develop lung cancer although they themselves are nonsmokers,” Dr. Takeshi Hirayama, the author of the study, said in an interview. Dr. Hirayama is chief epidemiologist of the National Cancer Center Research Institute in Tokyo. Effects Previously Suspected

      The study also strengthens the thesis that the effect of tobacco smoke on the nonsmoker, which has been variously called passive, second-hand or involuntary smoking, may be a cause of lung cancer in the general population.

      The study adds to a growing body of evidence implicating passive smoking as a health hazard.”

      “Women whose husbands smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day were found to have a risk of lung cancer 2.08 times higher than women whose husbands did not smoke. If the husbands smoked one to 19 cigarettes a day, the risk was 1.61 times higher than for the wives of nonsmokers.”

      This is interesting.

      Risk Higher in Subgroups

      “The relative risk of developing cancer was much higher in various subgroups, particularly in agricultural families. The risk of developing lung cancer for nonsmoking wives of agricultural workers 40 to 59 years old who smoked two or more packages of cigarettes each day reached 4.6 times that of nonsmokers in agricultural areas, where the study’s findings could not be complicated by urban air conditions.”

      But presumably these agricultural workers were out in the fields all day, no matter how much they smoked.

      Perhaps it was washing their clothes, like the wives of the asbestos workers.

      Quite the opposite here.

      “Lung cancer area mortality rates for the period 1980-1983 in England and Wales followed the pattern observed for previous years, with high rates concentrated in urban districts and low rates in remote rural districts.”
      http: //

    • Frank Davis says:

      the student answered the question by refuting climate change with full references to back up their argument. It was marked 0%!

      That’s confirmation. Clearly if parents push back, universities will retreat. But how many parents will push back?

    • roobeedoo2 says:

      They really are the child abusers, aren’t they. Like reduction in harm means nothing BUT harm, and the ones that want to ‘save the children’ do it by holding said kids in front, like shield.

  8. If it’s any comfort, I had an 18 year-old as a lodger a couple of years ago. He’d fallen for all the PC claptrap and even threatened to report me for ‘homophobia’, even though he went out with girls and I wasn’t supposed to express an opinion in my own home and I let him stay here free, as the son of old friends.

    Anyways, that bit is scary, but at least he didn’t believe the climate con.

  9. I posted this on Leg-iron’s yesterday. It is something which could be expanded upon to produce a major work. Now, I realise most readers still believe in the Theory of Evolution, but it’s part of the Masterplan; one of the lies required to destroy civilisation as we know it in order to re-educate people to create a new world to suit the small cabal that thinks it owns the planet….

    There’s just so many big, big lies that are necessary for the world to believe (well, enough of the world) for the creation of world government and implementation of Agenda 21 to be realised. From our own UK perspective – look how it’s going to move full circle, but in a very bad way:

    1. Going back many centuries: start of the compromising of Christianity.

    2. 1540: The ‘Jesuits’ (Society of Jesus) was formed by the Church of Rome.

    3. Going back 300+ years: the Age of Enlightenment, where faith would be replaced by ‘reason’ even though scientific advances up until then were largely made by men of faith.

    4. Shortly afterwards saw the growth of Freemasonry, based on much older teachings of the mystery schools. Top Mason, Albert Pike, gave away many secrets in his book ‘Morals and Dogma’ (1871/2) including that Freemasonry aims to destroy Christianity and replace it with Luciferianism.

    5. Going back 200+ years: The ‘Enlightenment’ enabled atheists and vague deists to replace the Christian (in fact, almost every culture’s) worldview of young earth creationism with the philosophy of uniformitarianism (long ages and no catastrophes – clearly fraudulent – and no creation, therefore no Creator).

    6. 1848: ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (Marx & Engels). Marx called religion, “The opium of the people” and of course we see how religious people are treated under Marxist-Leninist regimes.

    7. 1859: ‘The Origin of Species’ was published convincing even many Christians in the 19th century and thus undermining scripture. Today it is a war between worldviews with ‘atheism’ becoming a religion in its own right.

    8. 1884: The Fabian Society founded. They believe that the only way to achieve a totally socialist society is to destroy the family. Every western government appears to have adopted their ‘principles’.

    9. 1945: The United Nations was formed. The plan was to use the pretext of peace, aid, health, education, etc. to gradually sign up member countries (almost every one now) to ‘legally binding’ agreements, thus diminishing national sovereignty.

    10. 1957: The Treaty of Rome, which created the EEC which was designed to morph into the EU and beyond.

    11. 1980s: Manmade global warming used as a device to unite nations under international laws and as an excuse to deindustrialise and therefore impoverish the West to aid in the global takeover.

    12. During the 20th century: most of the world’s media taken over to be controlled by governments and half a dozen individuals, thus readily spreading the propaganda to one and all with barely any major opposing (truthful/sceptical) views.

    13. 1992: UN Agenda 21. ‘Sustainable development’ to encourage depopulation.

    14+ The future: to build on all the centuries’ worth of ground work by finally removing all national borders and installing a world government (we’re nearly there, as many of the world’s laws start life at the UN and other intergovernmental conferences). With the world government will be a one world religion. There are many possible scenarios which can produce that. We have already seen the creation of the World Council of Churches and various interfaith organisations in preparation. There will be few ‘atheists’ left when the Freemason’s antichrist is revealed as the ‘saviour’ in this new system.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Stewart I do believe your right,its one lie built upon the next lie………………Its roots find itself all the way back to the beginning of this one world united nations led bullshit!

      Mark Twain in his moral statistician gives us insight to it happening back then in 1895!

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        Frank even Sagans science is based upon statistical values of the heavens…………I kid you not. They build that upon the next statistical values they come up with and then build more so called concensus upon that last bit! I read that on a scientists blog awhile back…….Sagans after religious science and seems to want to allow leftist junk science to get a free pass!

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          BTW Charlie Rose is still on TV on the Bloomberg channel!

        • Building lie upon lie is how they’ve got away with it all. The Theory of Evolution was only made possible by the *philosophy* of uniformitarianism, which we now know to be false (think the meteor strike which supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs, ice age, volcanoes – esp. supervolcanoes, etc.).

          Same in politics. Take ‘equality’. A simple concept at first – and a correct one when used properly, but it became totally insane where things that are clearly not equal were made to be equal and it has replaced the concepts of fairness and justice many times, even as a rule.

          As Aristotle knew 23 centuries ago, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”

        • Frank Davis says:

          The Theory of Evolution was only made possible by the *philosophy* of uniformitarianism,

          No it wasn’t. It was made possible through the inheritance of genetic variations. Uniformitarianism was simply the idea that things stayed much the same most of the time, and change was almost imperceptibly slow. There’s no necessity for evolution to take place at an imperceptibly slow and uniform rate. And the end-Cretaceous asteroid strike and large scale extinction remains the current leading theory, rather than any sort of established fact. And whether true or false, the theory of evolution isn’t a ‘lie’. That is to say that it’s not a deliberately fabricated falsehood.

      • Edgar says:

        One of Carl Sagan’s most famous assertions is that ‘extraordinary’ claims require extraordinary evidence. This is scientific nonsense and is an attitude that is designed to make it easy for scientists to dismiss uncomfortable evidence. Who decides when a claim is extraordinary, and why shouldn’t every claim be accepted that has the ‘normal’ level of scientific evidence?
        Today, claiming that smoking is not the primary cause of lung cancer, emphysema, etc., etc. would be regarded as an ‘extraordinary’ claim. Thus, it can never be verified because no evidence will be extraordinary enough.

  10. Harleyrider1978 says:

    BBC comment boards show public health has no credibility

    Share on facebook

    Share on twitter

    Share on email

    Share on print

    More Sharing Services


    Monday April 7, 2014

    Chris Oakley explains why public health is no longer fooling anyone other than the political elite and the odd “journalist”

    For some time now I have been wondering how ideas such as plain packaging cigarettes become law despite foreseeable negative consequences, a lack of public support and any credible evidence in their favour. The rather disturbing conclusion that I have reached is that media hacks, politicians and public health advocates have a number of things in common:

    • Cushy well paid jobs that require no special talent or expertise;

    • Inability to form rounded opinions and to understand debates that extend beyond the “if it saves one child…” level;

    • A limited grasp of ethics and a lack of moral fibre; and,

    • Complete contempt for public opinion unless immediately threatening or useful.

    The stranglehold these groups exert on the free flow of information to the general public has for many years stifled debate and presented a less than wholly truthful version of public health to the wider UK audience.

    Last week saw three major public health stories in the news. All were covered by the BBC and in each case the BBC online team allowed readers to “have their say”.

    The first story appropriately released on April 1st informed us that eating seven or more portions of fruit rather than five will prolong life. It was based on a “study” produced by one of the myriad starry eyed graduates of the Institute of Public Health inevitably described as an “expert” by the BBC. The study is a classic example of public health industry nonsense. It is statistically-based supposition with no supporting evidence and no controls that is summed up in the BBC article by a quote from Professor Tom Sanders:

    “You cannot extrapolate from this kind of information to make sensible pronouncements about what people should eat.”

    It is a sentiment echoed in many of the comments from the public who seem to understand the ridiculousness of trying to use household survey data to quantify the impact of what is in fact a slogan intended to encourage people to eat a bit more veg. The top rated readers comment reads:

    “Risk of death remains 100%, no matter how healthy your lifestyle is.”

    Some other highly rated comments have the added benefit of being amusing:

    “5 pints of cider was hard enough – now I’ve got to drink 7?”

    “Unfortunately the only fruit I like is Watermelons. Eating 5 of those was enough of a struggle; I don’t think I can continue to work full time If I’m going to get 7 in.”

    The second story released the following day covered the more serious subject of a proposed ban on e-cigs in public places and a minimum price for alcohol in Wales. The story featured a particularly ill-informed representative of the political class repeating the propaganda that public health has told him to say about health inequalities, the affordability of alcohol, tobacco and e-cigs. Mark Drakeford, the Welsh Health Minister confirmed for anyone still in doubt that public health is not a science but an ideology when he stated:

    “I have concerns about the impact of e-cigarettes on the enforcement of Wales’ smoking ban. That’s why we are proposing restricting their use in enclosed public places.

    And he went on to add:

    “I am also concerned that their use in enclosed public places could normalise smoking behaviour.

    In fairness to the BBC, critical counterpoints are included in the article but the final word is given to the Chief Medical Officer who adds a touch of jingoism to spice up the quasi-religious ideology:

    “On the seventh anniversary of the smoking ban, it is symbolic that Wales is once again at the forefront of a new set of radical proposals to improve public health.”

    The members of the public commenting below the story also appear to appreciate the true nature of the proposal. The top rated comments include this:

    “I am a non smoker… But I think the health authorities should investigate what chemicals are within the product and if they pose a risk, then consider a ban.. However, if it is simply banning them for ‘undermining’ the smoking ban – that smells of a police state. People have the right to be free.”

    And this:

    “The smoking ban was brought in on the premise of secondhand smoke being a health risk. This proposed ban seems to be based on nothing more than e-cigs looking like smoking. 
It certainly looks like pure vindictiveness on the part of a power crazed health fascist.”

    Together with the utterly magnificent:

    “They need to ban water too. When its in a glass it looks just like vodka…surely a bad example for the children.”

    No doubt there are those who might take the third comment seriously and the worrying thing is that they may be in a position of authority somewhere near you.

    The following day, a third story about plain packaging for cigarettes appeared to stimulate certain BBC journalists to something akin to orgasm. The online version is notable for the desperate attempts by the public health secretary and her shadow to outdo each other in the dishonesty stakes as both try to justify a law that will have far reaching consequences way beyond tobacco on the basis of no evidence whatsoever other than the speculation of a supremely unqualified “independent expert” who thinks it might have a miniscule impact on smoking uptake and the disingenuous claims of tobacco control activists. In the sad, twisted world of Luciana Berger, that apparently amounts to “overwhelming evidence”.

    Despite the relentless support of the BBC’s “impartial” health correspondent, the waffle from Westminster and the sham “independent” report have not impressed the BBC’s audience. The top rated reader comment is:

    “Given that tobacco advertising is banned in the UK, it can’t legally be sold to under-age children, packaging has large health warnings on them, and products cannot be openly displayed when on sale, is ‘plain’ packaging actually going to make any difference at all? Kids will just get cigarettes, regardless of brand or packaging and often from ‘non-retail’ sources.”

    Reflecting points made in Westminster, another highly rated comment reads:

    “Heroin comes in plain packaging too”

    I personally rather liked this well rated comment:

    “I used to smoke but quit about 10 years ago, and I can assure everyone reading this that packaging played absolutely NO part in me becoming a smoker. It’s yet another case of a politician having no clue what she’s talking about”.

    Had these comments been published in a conservative newspaper, public health disciples might be able to claim that they represented a minority reactionary response to progressive ideas. But they appeared on the BBC which has a broad and if anything possibly left of centre appeal, suggesting that despite Jane Ellison’s claims, the public appears not to back the increasingly authoritarian demands of the public health industry and recognises the cowardice and dishonesty of those politicians who seek to appease it. Unfortunately, the self-important elite are not listening because they only embrace public opinion when it suits them to do so.

  11. Frank Davis says:

    Headteachers who brainwash children with green propaganda are breaking the law, Michael Gove has suggested.

    The Education Secretary has read ‘with concern’ a report which accused ‘activist’ teaching staff of trying to turn pupils into ‘foot soldiers of the green movement’.

    It found the marks children were awarded in exams depended on ‘parroting’ the green agenda. And many widely-used textbooks included inaccurate examples.

    Read more:

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      I think your right all science is totally suspect today……..Maybe its because the progressives in the last round in 1900 at least in America built the new university system around their own values and agendas. They basically bought up all the private medical colleges in America back in the later half of the 19th century to create todays medical community…………..They did that with all the so called curricullums and subject matter.

      I had a piece written on all of this I just cant find it now with this new puter and the file transfer. Maybe Miss Rose has it.

  12. nisakiman says:

    I just happened upon this little nugget:

    “FG okays 6 months imprisonment for smoking in public”

    Come to sunny Nigeria – but leave your ciggies at home if you want to make your flight back. Bloody hell…

  13. Frank Davis says:

    Via Audrey Silk on Facebook: My father used to keep a bar in his living room. It even had bitters. And he smoked.

    Why Home Bars Are Hot with New Yorkers Now

    Not only do city dwellers know how to enjoy a cocktail, they are keener than ever to make them at home. According to many of the city’s higher-end interior designers, AMC’s Mad Men, returning on April 13, has played a big part in the resurgence of the home bar. The smoking ban has also curtailed the going-out habits of some of the city’s sophisticates, who, while not necessarily actually wanting to smoke in bars and restaurants, hate the fact that they cannot.

    “All of a sudden, almost every client is asking for a bar,” says Manhattan-based interior designer Katie Ridder. “Mad Men is mentioned a lot; people are looking for the glamour of that era, too. They want a bar to include luxurious elements such as verre églomisé (metallic effects on glass), embossed or gilded wallpaper, plus glossy woodwork with a wine fridge, room for bottles and all the different glassware. Clients with young children or teenagers ask for locks. If the bar is incorporated into a bookcase, they want it to stand out with mirrored backsplashes and pretty display shelves.”

    • nisakiman says:

      New York is discovering the delights of the smoky-drinky! :)

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        My ex father inlaws house built in 1900 in Pennsylvania had a sweet little bar built into it……..The corner tavern in penn. neighborhoods is well known. Even in Indiana they got em on every corner. Could be how they came to was during prohibition and then repeal made em legal and they never closed shop!

    • Emily says:

      If they live in an apartment or condo they might not even be allowed to smoke in their home bars anymore. I’m getting worried about this as I rent an apartment, though so far I’ve had no problem I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.

  14. nisakiman says:

    Now this is interesting. I just read an article here about Indonesia’s continuing battle with Australia with reference to plain packaging laws breaking global trade rules, and further down the article, it says:

    “Earlier, it challenged the US over the latter’s ban on clove cigarette sales and won after the WTO ruled the ban was discriminatory.

    The US did not change its tobacco rule to comply with the ruling and Indonesia demanded retaliatory measures.”

    So even if the WTO rules against Australia on plain packaging, it would seem that they can ignore the ruling with impunity, as the USA has done on the clove cigarettes issue. In which case it would appear that the WTO has no real authority at all. So what’s the point of going to them with a complaint?

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      I suppose when you see that they have no intention of observing their own international laws when it gets in the way of the world vision agenda,we can quickly garner a viewpoint that countries can basically ignore treaties like the FCTC whenever they so choose!

      It basically destroys the NWO/UN agenda from within………..if they wont abide why should anyone else! Its a way out for everyone from the entire BS.

  15. Rose says:

    Plain cigarette packaging could add ‘mystique’, says MP

    “After his report, Mr Chantler said an introduction of plain packaging would be likely to contribute to a “modest but important” reduction in smoking.

    However, Mr Nuttall said he believed this could create a forbidden fruit effect, and only increase the desire of children to experiment.

    Plain packaging would feature purposefully unattractive packaging, without any branding or promotional information.

    He said: “It is human nature, if something is put away and is in plain packaging it is given a mystique, it may make children more inquisitive.”

    If this story in the Daily Mail is to be believed, the horrible pictures on cigarette packets that we have already don’t seem to be having much effect.

    Up to 600 children under 16 across the UK take up smoking every day, report warns”
    December 2013

    I had been worried about the effect of these disturbing pictures on children, but when the 7 year old next door noticed one of the builders discarded packets on her drive she just grinned delightedly.

    Mind you, who can truly understand the mind of a 7 year old?

  16. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Top court rules against smokers with lung cancer

    Apr 11,2014
    The Supreme Court yesterday refused appeals by 30 cancer-stricken smokers seeking damages from a tobacco company, saying “no definite causal relation exists” between smoking and each plaintiff’s individual case of lung cancer.

    The court also ruled that tobacco company KT&G is not liable for damages because the company didn’t engage in unlawful practices such as hiding the risks of smoking or misleading consumers.

    The landmark ruling, which upholds a lower court’s decision, marks the first time the Supreme Court ruled on smoking and its effects on smokers, ending a 15-year legal battle between the smokers and KT&G.

    “Even if there is evidence that there is a higher lung cancer incidence rate among smokers, it doesn’t necessarily mean that smoking is a sole cause of lung cancer,” the court said.

    “Just the fact that a smoker suffers lung cancer can’t serve as conclusive evidence to prove a causal relationship between smoking and the cancer,” the court continued. “There are different kinds of lung cancer. Some of the cancers are greatly affected by smoking, but others aren’t.”

    The court also said that other external factors or biological factors might have played a role in causing the plaintiffs’ lung cancer and added that the cigarette manufacturer didn’t conceal the health risks of smoking.

    Although all three rulings in the tobacco suit have now been in favor of KT&G, the appeals ruling by the Seoul High Court differs from the first trial and the Supreme Court ruling by acknowledging the causal relationship between smoking and cancer. But the high court didn’t order KT&G to pay compensation.

    Yesterday’s ruling will be a precedent for future smoking cases, including one being brought by a state-run health insurance agency against KT&G.

    The National Health Insurance Service is preparing to file lawsuits against tobacco companies to seek compensation for health care expenses caused by what it calls smoking-related diseases.

    The government body said that the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t dampen its chance of winning because it has collected extensive data to prove the correlation between smoking and cancer. It will file its suit Monday.

    The Korean Association on Smoking or Health, a nonprofit organization that champions tougher restrictions on smoking, condemned the court’s decision yesterday.

    “The ruling gives an exemption to the tobacco companies and ignores the human right to health,” the association said in a statement.

    “The ruling was supposed to have important implications at a time when the National Health Insurance Service plans to sue tobacco companies,” it said. “We don’t believe that the Supreme Court ruled carefully because it didn’t allow for a single open argument.”

    The case in Korea began in 1999 when 36 people filed two separate suits seeking 474.7 million won ($454,700) in damages.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who was held responsible for the troubled rollout of the federal government’s website, is resigning.

      “From her work on Head Start, to expanding mental health coverage, to advancing cutting-edge healthcare research and, of course, her unwavering leadership in implementing the Affordable Care Act, Secretary Sebelius often calls her work the most meaningful of her life,” an HHS official said Thursday. “As she closes this chapter, Secretary Sebelius is extremely thankful to President Obama and very proud of the historic accomplishments of this administration.”

      Sebelius, 65, who has served in the post since the beginning of President Obama’s first term in 2009, was “long expected” to resign, according to The Hill newspaper. “The Obama administration insisted it would hold officials responsible for their work, but quietly signaled that drastic measures couldn’t take place while the federal website struggled to get off the ground,” the paper said.

      Her resignation comes just a few weeks after the end of the first open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges, under which more than 7 million people have signed up for health insurance, exceeding government projections. Despite that success, Sebelius was criticized for the federal exchange’s rocky launch.

      The rest of Sebelius’s tenure also was not without controversy; in 2011, she overruled FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, in deciding that the “morning-after pill” Plan-B One-Step could not be sold over the counter. That decision drew criticism from groups such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

      Obama’s expected nominee to succeed Sebelius is Sylvia Burwell, who currently heads the Office of Management and Budget, according to CNN.

      Prior to her HHS post, Sebelius, 65, served as a Kansas state representative from 1987 to 1995; she then served 8 years as the state’s insurance commissioner before being elected governor in 2003. She is the daughter of the late Ohio Democratic governor John Gilligan.

  17. Harleyrider1978 says:

    under which more than 7 million people have signed up for health insurance, exceeding government projections. Despite that success,

    ROFLMAO….Only 886,000 can be identified as signing up and paying the premium and Owebummer wont release the raw data where they claim 7 million…………

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.